God created marriage and man decided to get involved with it even though it has always been a Christian institution. Submitting that we should not force our views on the Californian population because "not all of them are Christian" would be akin to submitting that it would be ok for the government body to get involved with communion. They would decide who is and who is not worthy to receive and create a 'license' for communicants. Then one day they decide that ALL people irregardless of their beliefs or standing have the 'right' to communion.

Government has hijacked marriage. It was never theirs. Not that long ago, a 'license' was not even needed. You registered family marriages in the family Bible and that was that. It was accepted. Births registered in a family Bible are still acceptable as 'birth certificates' in many parts of the country.

The word 'marriage' has been polluted and diluted by man, vis a vis government inteference. Taking a so-called non-judgemental stance on a Christian institution is a non-starter. That would be like saying you believe a license for a Bar Mitsvah is required and anybody can perform one and anyone can become Bar Mitsvahed.

"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.
One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization)."

You fail the history quiz, little Linder. Marriage, in fact, goes back far further than Christianity, and until about the eigth century, the Church was mostly uninvolved - marriage was primarily used as a tool for political and inheritance purposes.

Even the most minor amount of research would demonstrate you are incorrect. Marriage existed way before Christianity. It was most often used as a means of passing wealth through the male heir of the family and/or for political reasons.

Christianity hijacked it as a religious bond in about the year 900, give or take a few.

But that's beside the point anyway, as we are a free country here and an adult should be able to marry another adult.

Let's ignore all the factual problems with your argument. What really matters here is the legal benefits that married couples get and are being denied to same sex couples. Call it partnership, stable union, call it banana if you want, just give the legal benefits and stop trying to say who other people should be allowed to be with.

When will you idiots learn that marriage rediculously predates your religion, so how the hell can it be an establishment of just your religion? Christianity can't own something that's older than it even is.

To the communion thing- ONLY Christians get communion, everybody (including, *gasp* non-religous people!)gets married. See the problem with that analogy there? Same with the Bar Mitsvah one, which ONLY Jews get.

Also, the only, and I repeat, ONLY reason that same sex marriage is an issue is that gay couples that have been together longer than some straight married couples want to be able to get the same SECULAR benefits. There's nothing more to it. It's you idiots claiming that they're trying to destroy marriage and can't get past your homophobia that say otherwise.

A. Other cultures and religions have marriage ceremonies as well meaning that marriage was never exclusively Christian. Communion, on the other hand is a ritual exclusive to Christianity.

B. Marriage and birth records have been kept by the state for a very long time. It is likely that those people for whom a bible registration is/was valid were people who are very old and born in remote parts of the country.

C. Going though a Bar or Bat Mitzvah does not grant a person any particular privileges, especially when it comes to the tax code. Marriage, however, does and as a result the state has an interest in registering marriages.

You fail the history quiz, little Linder. Marriage, in fact, goes back far further than Christianity, and until about the eigth century, the Church was mostly uninvolved - marriage was primarily used as a tool for political and inheritance purposes.

man decided to get involved with it even though it has always been a Christian institution

I didn't know that Christians weren't people. Good to know. Also, I'm pretty sure Egyptians and Sumerians kind of beat Christians to it; by like a few thousand years.

Submitting that we should not force our views on the Californian population because "not all of them are Christian" would be akin to submitting that it would be ok for the government body to get involved with communion

Hey, if the people want a secular version of communion, then it is our obligation as a democracy to give them one. Doesn't mean you can't still have your own, religious communion or that you yourself have to provide communion to non-Christians. You don't have to lift a fucking finger so I don't see what your problem is other than the fact that you cannot pretend that you're special.

Government has hijacked marriage.

Perhaps, but religion hijacked it from the people a few centuries ago so it's only fair.

Taking a so-called non-judgemental stance on a Christian institution is a non-starter.

It's not a fucking Christian institution. If it can be said to belong to any religion it's the Pagans but more accurately, it belongs to the people.

That would be like saying you believe a license for a Bar Mitsvah is required and anybody can perform one and anyone can become Bar Mitsvahed.

Again, if there's a demand for a secularly recognized version of it, what's the problem with the government providing one?

Finally, a question: given what you said in your post, are you now trying to take marriage away from all non-Christians? If so, go on, try it. I'll enjoy watching you sputter and fail and in the process further destroy your own side's cause.

God created marriage and man decided to get involved with it even though it has always been a Christian institution.

Even though, if we assume your bible's timeline is 100% accurate, marriage occurred 4000 years before Jesus was born? What about marriages that have occurred throughout time in non-Christian countries?

Submitting that we should not force our views on the Californian population because "not all of them are Christian" would be akin to submitting that it would be ok for the government body to get involved with communion. They would decide who is and who is not worthy to receive and create a 'license' for communicants.

Wow, a RR denizen comes so close to realizing why separation of church & state is a good thing.

Then one day they decide that ALL people irregardless of their beliefs or standing have the 'right' to communion.

Well if they want it and believe in it, why shouldn't they have it? And "irregardless" is not a word.